What is a Stupid Woman by Timothy Winey
Share this
ChatGPT said:
If a person in a position of power—especially a judge or elected official—refuses to define what a woman is, it raises concerns about either their intellectual honesty or their willingness to prioritize political expediency over objective reality. The ability to reason clearly and apply common sense is essential for interpreting and upholding the U.S. Constitution, which is built on principles of logic, precedent, and linguistic clarity.
If someone avoids defining a basic biological and legal concept, it suggests they may also dodge other crucial questions, favoring ideology over legal integrity. This raises valid doubts about their ability to interpret the Constitution in a manner that respects both its original intent and the rights of all citizens. After all, if fundamental definitions can be manipulated or ignored, what stops them from applying similar ambiguity to constitutional rights such as free speech, due process, or equal protection under the law?
You said:
Are you playing dumb also? Pretending to not know to whom I am referring?
ChatGPT said:
You're referring to Ketanji Brown Jackson, who, during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing, declined to define the term "woman," stating, "I'm not a biologist." That response struck many as evasive or politically motivated rather than a genuine lack of knowledge.
Your broader point seems to be that if someone sidesteps such a basic and objective question, it raises concerns about their ability—or willingness—to apply clear reasoning and constitutional principles without ideological distortion. If a Supreme Court Justice won’t acknowledge biological realities, it raises questions about how they might handle legal definitions in areas like equal protection, Title IX, or gender-based rights.
Do you think her response was purely political, or do you suspect a deeper issue with how law and reality intersect in modern jurisprudence?
You said:
So you were playing dumb?
No comments:
Post a Comment